Related
http://www.amazon.com/Anker-PowerCore-Ultra-Compact-VoltageBoost-Technology/dp/B014ZO46LK
USB-C port charging at 5V/2.4A not 3A
Edit: I received this email from Anker today: "Thank you for getting back to us.
We would like to help you confirm the information. The output current of the external battery is 6A, Here are the specific output current information.
One USB C output port: 3A Two Power iq output port: 3A for two ports.
Meanwhile, please be noted that one USB-C port in the external battery is both output port and input port. When you use the port to recharge itself, the input current is 2.4A. When you use the port to charge other device, it's output 3A.
Please let us know if you need any other help. Thank you!"
So it's looks like the USB-C port output is 3A
fail ...........
Is that the current rating for a macbook? Doesn't really specify the exact outputs...
The photo on Amazon seems to shows a MacBook being connected to a Type-A port on the Anker. The actual cable goes off the screen, but that's what is implied.
The description on Amazon says that the Anker comes with a Type-A to Type-C cable and a Type-A to micro-B cable. It does not come with a TYpe-C to Type-C cable or a charger.
Based on this, it seems like the type-C port is only for charging the Anker itself. The OUTPUTS on the Anker are the two Type-A ports. Hopefully my assumptions are wrong. Hopefully the Type-C port on this guy is capable of power transfer in both directions.
Got my RAVPower a couple weeks ago and has USB-C 5V at 3A and QC2.0 output for 36$. Don't have my 6P yet to try but RAVPower is solid. I'll check it out then.
Just an FYI, I called Anker support yesterday and they confirmed the USB C output is 5V/2.4A. Could still be an error but not encouraging.
Would really like some clear answers from Anker, pity their website still says coming soon for this product. really limiting.
I'd jump the gun and get it and report back, but given I'm down under, shopping cost and time would make my efforts kind of redundant....anyone keen to do it in the continental US? I'd even kick in $10 towards the confirmation cause.
yeah, honestly glad I snagged the RAVpower. More options on how to charge other devices AND more options on how to charge the battery itself
RAVPower can offer 5V/3A. That one will be more great.
Update says output from Anker's is indeed 3A like we need, what are you guys missing?
Also, ravpower says 2.4 output so why is that one better? Am I looking at the wrong model?
MYxdaUSERNAME said:
Update says output from Anker's is indeed 3A like we need, what are you guys missing?
Also, ravpower says 2.4 output so why is that one better? Am I looking at the wrong model?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That 2.4 on the ravpower is the Qualcomm quick charge port not the USB-C port. I've got the ravpower in hand and its printed on it that it's 3A in and out from the USB-C. And it's been verified as compliant by the Google engineer
crazyg0od33 said:
That 2.4 on the ravpower is the Qualcomm quick charge port not the USB-C port. I've got the ravpower in hand and its printed on it that it's 3A in and out from the USB-C. And it's been verified as compliant by the Google engineer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I got a question here, since type c port supports input and output, when i connects 2 type c port on power banks, which one will be charged, and which one will be discharged?
feihu989 said:
I got a question here, since type c port supports input and output, when i connects 2 type c port on power banks, which one will be charged, and which one will be discharged?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well this one charges the phone and only charges itself via USB-C if plugged into the wall or another charging device. I'm not sure how it knows, but it charges my phone with no issues and no extra steps
Considering how screwed up the 5V3A situation is, I decided to jump off that bus and order some regular, high quality, low price, 2.4A (per port) Aukey chargers that can be used with cheap ass cables that no one wants. They will be Type A to Type C so other phones and tablets can use them. And no QC 2.0 because they are about 1/2 the price and if QC 2.0 or 3.0 becomes an issue with other devices in my house, I will buy new ones. The car charger is $12.99 (They sell a bigger one for $6.99) on Amazon and the wall one is $7.99. Google's massive FUBAR solved!
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Yep don't know what half the smartphone world is on about with all this 3A rubbish.
How many people charge their phone over night - MOST
How many people are truly upset and really feel annoyed that their device is not charging at 3A to the point where they will go out their way to get 3A everything.
Chances are alot of these people come from using 1.2A chargers or turbo chargers or QI charging - did you see them whine about how slow it was back in those non 3A days ? not many
its just the utterly butt hurt whiners and those who suck the exlixer from googles every word andneed 3A leads / chargers.
if you charge over night a 1A or a 1.2A or a 2A or QI wont make any difference when you wake up in the morning.
A have a 3A from the phones box and a turbo charger and "normal" chargers from older phones and a 2.4A car charger and it charges plenty fast enough.
for those who wish to tell me that the turbo charger wont work with fast charge go do one, I plug it in and it charges fast enough for me to not cry all over the internet simply beacuse some google pixel dude is reviewing usb leads and mine is not one yadda yadda.
Isn't the problem with cheapass (USB-C) cables is that they pull more power than the adapter can push? and possibly fry it?
hutzdani said:
Yep don't know what half the smartphone world is on about with all this 3A rubbish.
How many people charge their phone over night - MOST
How many people are truly upset and really feel annoyed that their device is not charging at 3A to the point where they will go out their way to get 3A everything.
Chances are alot of these people come from using 1.2A chargers or turbo chargers or QI charging - did you see them whine about how slow it was back in those non 3A days ? not many
its just the utterly butt hurt whiners and those who suck the exlixer from googles every word andneed 3A leads / chargers.
if you charge over night a 1A or a 1.2A or a 2A or QI wont make any difference when you wake up in the morning.
A have a 3A from the phones box and a turbo charger and "normal" chargers from older phones and a 2.4A car charger and it charges plenty fast enough.
for those who wish to tell me that the turbo charger wont work with fast charge go do one, I plug it in and it charges fast enough for me to not cry all over the internet simply beacuse some google pixel dude is reviewing usb leads and mine is not one yadda yadda.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neat.
catire said:
Isn't the problem with cheapass (USB-C) cables is that they pull more power than the adapter can push? and possibly fry it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is also my understanding. People can use any charging brick they prefer as long as they are using quality type A to type C cables that are designed to spec.
jTink010 said:
People can use any charging brick they prefer as long as they are using quality type A to type C cables that are designed to spec.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Thank you.
catire said:
Isn't the problem with cheapass (USB-C) cables is that they pull more power than the adapter can push? and possibly fry it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both the phone and these chargers have over-current and thermal protection in the device circuits. Hence, the chargers won't try to provide more current than it can reliably deliver. No worries!
dwswager said:
Both the phone and these chargers have over-current and thermal protection in the device circuits. Hence, the chargers won't try to provide more current than it can reliably deliver. No worries!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think what they are trying to say is, the problem is not on the charger itself, but on the cheap/wrongly spec'ed cables. If you had a bad cable which tries to pull 3A from any USB-A charger (which supports up to 2.4A), it would fry the charger.
ctbear said:
I think what they are trying to say is, the problem is not on the charger itself, but on the cheap/wrongly spec'ed cables. If you had a bad cable which tries to pull 3A from any USB-A charger (which supports up to 2.4A), it would fry the charger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issue is that the phone will think it can pull 3A because the cable design and the charger will try to deliver and will over heat and burn out. But the phone should have under-voltage lockout and the charger has both over-current and over temperature protection.
dwswager said:
The issue is that the phone will think it can pull 3A because the cable design and the charger will try to deliver and will over heat and burn out. But the phone should have under-voltage lockout and the charger has both over-current and over temperature protection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...which is not even needed on a 3A charger because it supports the 3A current pull. By switching to another charger and lowering the maximum current output, you are actually increasing the risk of a fire, because now your faulty cable will try to pull 3A (when it shouldn't) from a 2.4A charger.
ctbear said:
......you are actually increasing the risk of a fire, because now your faulty cable will try to pull 3A (when it shouldn't) from a 2.4A charger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Repeat after me, a cable represents an open circuit to the charger and draws no current. The phone is the load. The cable presents resistance to the flow of current.
Lightning deal
well reading more, 2.1a and 1.0a
dwswager said:
Repeat after me, a cable represents an open circuit to the charger and draws no current. The phone is the load. The cable presents resistance to the flow of current.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that a usb cable is more than just a conducting wire. There is a lot more information the phone requires before it "negotiates" how much current it should draw from the power source. The reason why this even makes the news is that some cables (with a USB-A end) uses a much lower resistor pullup value that expected in the USB specifications, which leads the phone to believe that the other end is capable of producing the 3A current (according to USB-C specs). This has been reported numerous times by different articles and mentioned by the Google engineer himself, and can be found in the actual USB-C specification document. If you don't believe me, at least read his reviews on Amazon. He certainly knows and explains a lot better than I do.
The Amazon basics car charger that I already have adds juice to the phone while Waze is running. Good enough for me. I don't charge my phone overnight, I just charge it when I get up before I leave for work. Leave with 100% battery every day
dwertz said:
well reading more, 2.1a and 1.0a
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without a link, I would suspect this is a standard dual port charger with one port 2.1A and the other 1A!
ctbear said:
Except that a usb cable is more than just a conducting wire. There is a lot more information the phone requires before it "negotiates" how much current it should draw from the power source. The reason why this even makes the news is that some cables (with a USB-A end) uses a much lower resistor pullup value that expected in the USB specifications, which leads the phone to believe that the other end is capable of producing the 3A current (according to USB-C specs). This has been reported numerous times by different articles and mentioned by the Google engineer himself, and can be found in the actual USB-C specification document. If you don't believe me, at least read his reviews on Amazon. He certainly knows and explains a lot better than I do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get me wrong, any cable should be designed to USB specifications. But so should the devices! The Fundamental problem is 5V/3A. Google apparently designed the phone around the connector spec instead of the USB 2.0 specification. 3A is the design requirement in USB Type C spec for what a standard cable must be able to handle, not a USB power specification. Look around and count the number of 5V/3A USB devices you find. I can only think of one...a specific Asus Transformer model that came with a captive 5V/3A charger with a Micro USB connector and warning labels not to plug it into any other USB devices. Even so, the Transformer did port detection so it wouldn't try to over draw from compliant source ports.
The BC1.2 (Battery Charging Spec) outlines three distinct types of USB port and two key monikers. A "charging" port is one that delivers currents higher than 500mA. A "downstream" port signals data as per USB 2.0. The BC1.2 specification also establishes both how each port should appear to the end device, and the protocol to identify what type of port is implemented. The three USB BC1.2 port types are SDP, DCP, and CDP:
1. Standard Downstream Port (SDP) This port features 15kΩ pulldown resistors on both the D+ and D- lines. The current limits are : 2.5mA when suspended, 100mA when connected, and 500mA when connected and configured for higher power.
2. Dedicated Charging Port (DCP) This port does not support any data transfer, but is capable of supplying charge currents beyond 1.5A. It features a short between the D+ and D- lines. This type of port allows for wall chargers and car chargers with high-charge capability without the need for enumeration.
3. Charging Downstream Port (CDP) This port allows for both high-current charging and data transfer fully compliant with USB 2.0. It features the 15kΩ pulldown resistors necessary for the D+ and D- communication, and also has internal circuitry that is switched in during the charger detection phase. This internal circuitry allows the portable device to distinguish a CDP from other port types.
Bottom line - if this phone is of such poor design that it starts fires, what will the common element of all those fires end up being? The Phone!
dwswager said:
Don't get me wrong, any cable should be designed to USB specifications. But so should the devices! The Fundamental problem is 5V/3A. Google apparently designed the phone around the connector spec instead of the USB 2.0 specification. 3A is the design requirement in USB Type C spec for what a standard cable must be able to handle, not a USB power specification. Look around and count the number of 5V/3A USB devices you find. I can only think of one...a specific Asus Transformer model that came with a captive 5V/3A charger with a Micro USB connector and warning labels not to plug it into any other USB devices. Even so, the Transformer did port detection so it wouldn't try to over draw from compliant source ports.
The BC1.2 (Battery Charging Spec) outlines three distinct types of USB port and two key monikers. A "charging" port is one that delivers currents higher than 500mA. A "downstream" port signals data as per USB 2.0. The BC1.2 specification also establishes both how each port should appear to the end device, and the protocol to identify what type of port is implemented. The three USB BC1.2 port types are SDP, DCP, and CDP:
1. Standard Downstream Port (SDP) This port features 15kΩ pulldown resistors on both the D+ and D- lines. The current limits are : 2.5mA when suspended, 100mA when connected, and 500mA when connected and configured for higher power.
2. Dedicated Charging Port (DCP) This port does not support any data transfer, but is capable of supplying charge currents beyond 1.5A. It features a short between the D+ and D- lines. This type of port allows for wall chargers and car chargers with high-charge capability without the need for enumeration.
3. Charging Downstream Port (CDP) This port allows for both high-current charging and data transfer fully compliant with USB 2.0. It features the 15kΩ pulldown resistors necessary for the D+ and D- communication, and also has internal circuitry that is switched in during the charger detection phase. This internal circuitry allows the portable device to distinguish a CDP from other port types.
Bottom line - if this phone is of such poor design that it starts fires, what will the common element of all those fires end up being? The Phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no. The phone is compliant with the USB-C spec, which allows for considerably more than 3W (See: the Apple Macbook USB-C charger, the Chromebook Pixel USB-C charger and so on.) If you are using a C->C cable, with a compliant C charger, there should be no issue. The issue comes into play with a C->A cable which is not compliant, which causes the phone to think it's got a C connection and thus try to draw more power (3W) than the power supply can put out (effectively, it shorts out the power supply.) This can smoke the power supply. Literally.
Solution: (a) Use only C->C charging (this is your best bet, since it is the fastest) or (b) use a compliant C->A cable with any USB A charger. The phone will then negotiate an appropriate charging rate, either very slow (straight USB) or BC 1.2 (if available) which will still be slower than C->C.
Personally, I'd just stick with C->C and not worry much about the cable, *except* if you are using a C->A cable for data purposes, in which case, choose that cable wisely or risk frying your USB port.
I personally will be getting this http://goo.gl/CXIaHi to replace my car charger and possibly a second home charger. Along with getting a Type C - C cable from Google to eliminate any cable concerns. If you stick with Type c-c cables for charging you will be more than fine. I don't plan on charging my 6p using a Type A - C cable ever anyways.
Specifications:
Input (Micro): 5V/9V/12V 2A Max
Input (Type-C): 5V/3A Max
USB Output: 5V/ 2.4A
Type-C Output: 5V/3A Max
QC 2.0 Output: 5V/2.4A, 9V/1.5A, 12V/1.2A Max
dwswager said:
Bottom line - if this phone is of such poor design that it starts fires, what will the common element of all those fires end up being? The Phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, because that's what a company like google willingly intends to do. Provide a phone that is capable of burning down houses and cars and entering into massive lawsuits in the process...because that's smart business.
It seems to me that companies are just inaccurately advertising to make a quick buck out the gate. They know that they can seriously capitalize on a situation when newer technology is involved. Doesnt that seem a little more feasible? Most consumers read reviews and only care the cable has proper connectors, a decent length, and doesnt feel thin and cheap. Most consumers dont realize how much more goes into cables as you can tell by 98% of the reviews.
At this point I'm just waiting for Google to get more cables in stock in the Play Store because the price is the just about the same as all these off brand cables and I feel they should work better since they make the damn phone.
ctbear said:
Except that a usb cable is more than just a conducting wire. There is a lot more information the phone requires before it "negotiates" how much current it should draw from the power source. The reason why this even makes the news is that some cables (with a USB-A end) uses a much lower resistor pullup value that expected in the USB specifications, which leads the phone to believe that the other end is capable of producing the 3A current (according to USB-C specs). This has been reported numerous times by different articles and mentioned by the Google engineer himself, and can be found in the actual USB-C specification document. If you don't believe me, at least read his reviews on Amazon. He certainly knows and explains a lot better than I do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd be interested in reading his reviews, do you have a link?
DebauchedSloth said:
Actually no. The phone is compliant with the USB-C spec, which allows for considerably more than 3W (See: the Apple Macbook USB-C charger, the Chromebook Pixel USB-C charger and so on.) .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BINGO...and that is the fail! The Type C Spec is not a power spec, it is for the design of the connectors and cables which happen to carry power! You do not design a device around the specification for a 20 cent piece of metal. You design the device around the USB 2.0, 3.0 or 3.1 specification so it is interoperable with connected devices and when you decide to use a Type C connector, that spec also gets added to your design requirements. It does not replace the USB 2.0 specification which includes Battery Charging and USB Power Delivery.
BC1.2 requires comparing D- to Vdat-Ref at detection and then there are over and under voltage compliance allowing the PD to disconnect and renegotiate.
Under USB specifications, using a Type C connector you can deliver up to 100W. The Type C Spec is Item 34 in both the USB 2.0 and 3.0 specs. Point is, you don't get to pick and choose only what you want out of the larger spec and ignore the other applicable parts.
If a plethora of 5V/3A USB Type C products start appearing, then Google will have set a new standard. However, the Z5 and Lumia 950XL, both Type C, both are reported to support QC 2.0 which doesn't have a 3A capability. Even QC 3.0 doesn't support a 3A. It has voltage range from 3.6V to 20V in 200mV increments, but tops out at 2A.
There is a lot of ongoing work by companies to manufacture charging products for new USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) and Qualcomm Quick Charge (QC) devices. Because the USB-PD and QC specifications are at direct odds with each other, the products are difficult to standardize, leading to confusion among consumers. Essentially, anything that does not adhere to the strict USB-C specifications is considered in violation. Google Engineer Benson Leung has tested numerous USB-C cables and chargers and found many to not be within USB-C specification. This implies they may be dangerous for USB-PD devices. However, I have not seen any true proof of QC chargers damaging USB-PD devices, only that they will not fast charge them.
The engineering points are numerous and can get fairly complex, beyond the scope of this review. However, I find it important to add to the fount of knowledge with our new phones and charging devices, and this is my small contribution.
I own a LG G5 phone, and my testing and comments are limited to this device only.
My simple method is to use a USB-A multimeter as well as the Android OS’s amperage reading. There are limitations to this. Primarily, I have been informed that the Android OS amperage is based on a voltage of 5V. This was certainly fine in the days pre-Qualcomm Quick Charge, but now with higher and variable voltage, the amperage readings are not reliable. Secondly, as this is a USB-A meter, I have no way of directly monitoring USB-C amperage or voltage. Thirdly, I do not have the ability to digitally log the voltage off the multimeter, so some of the data points presented are more general than I would like.
Here I am reviewing the Tronsmart Presto 12000mAh battery pack, which has both a USB-C port for USB-PD devices (Nexus 6P, etc) and a USB-A port for QC3.0 devices (LG G5, HTC10). It is available here:
https://amazon.com/gp/product/B01GVBFBBO/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ALTVS0Q5KJ7M3
It was provide to me for my review.
The main selling point of this battery pack aside from the QC3.0 capability is the dual types of ports. If you happen to have both QC3.0 and USB-PD devices, this battery pack can theoretically fast charge either. The QC3.0 port is rated at the usual QC3.0 voltages/amperages, and the USB-PD port is rated at 5V/3A. It comes with a short USB-A to USB-C cable to be used with the QC3.0 port. You’ll have to supply your own double-ended USB-C cable if you want to go C to C.
There’s a 4 LED gauge for how much battery is left. During charging, the LED at the end will flash. On the side there’s a button to turn on the charging. The battery is charged through the USB-C port (it’s used both for output and input). Attached to my separate QC3.0 AC adapter, the battery charged at 2.4A / 5V only. I do not have a USB-PD charger to use to charge the Presto.
EDIT: I re-tried the charging measurements using a Tronsmart branded QC3.0 AC adapter and the battery now charged at 15W, ~2.7A and 5.6V. This is better than the prior measurements! Your charging adapter matters!
For this test, I used the included USB-A to USB-C cable for the QC3.0 port. My USB-C to C cable is one provided by ChoeTech (available here https://amazon.com/gp/product/B01H3COF62/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
I drained my phone down to ~20% and plugged in. Here is how the charging times for the Presto battery ports compare:
To go from ~20 to 100% for QC3.0, it took ~70 minutes. For the USB-PD port, it took 90 minutes. The mA readings for the QC3.0 are not accurate, but those reported by the Android OS. The USB-PD amperages are likely correct.
I have previously tested several QC3.0 and QC2.0 chargers. The charging time for the QC3.0 port lines up well with my multiple previous measurements. Those show that for 0-100%, it takes ~80 minutes, with ~20% increase/10 minutes for the first 20 minutes.
For the QC3.0 port, here are some general points collected from me taking notes on the multimeter readings:
Wattage maxed out at ~16-17W. Not bad!
Voltage maxed at 8.70 very briefly. Most of the early measurements (fastest charging) were at 6.4-7.4 volts.
Amperage maxed at ~2.6 briefly.
These measurements all fall within QC3.0 guidelines.
Regarding the USB-C port readings, it seems that despite a recent Gtrusted.com review,
http://gtrusted.com/review/lg-g5-su...-to-qualcomm-quick-charge-3-0-over-usb-type-c
which reported the LG G5 is also capable of negotiating charging over the USB-PD standard, many kinks and incompatibilities remain. Gtrusted.com subsequently found that the G5 cannot charge at all from the Anker or iVoler USB-PD charger USB-C ports:
http://gtrusted.com/review/40938
http://gtrusted.com/review/40937
I did not have that issue with the Presto, but the USB-PD port charging times were suboptimal. They lagged behind QC3.0, and an additional 15-20 minutes was necessary to top off the phone. I doubt the G5 is able to extract the 5V @ 3A the port is advertised to provide for USB-PD devices and that the initial Gtrusted report suggested.
Previous to my testing, I had wondered if the G5 would get the fast charging benefits of USB-PD chargers. In this case, it does not. As I mentioned in the introduction, the standards of USB-PD and QC clash with each other. Specifically, it is very unclear how manufacturers are implementing charging through USB-C ports.
Some earlier models had put QC3.0 into USB-C ports, which is in violation of USB-PD standards. BUT, I want to point out, why and how does that even affect QC capable devices? It really doesn't. The outrage on retailers such as Amazon is driven by the USB-PD side, neglecting entirely Qualcomm’s tested standard. Manufacturers in turn are removing their QC implementation from the USB-C ports and leaving them USB-PD only.
One notable issue I discovered was with the phone after the charging finished on the USB-C port and the battery auto-shutoff. The phone made repeated connecting/disconnecting sounds despite the battery pack being off. I think this is solely a G5’s issue though--perhaps the G5 detects a USB-C device but cannot successfully interface with it. The same thing occurs when the battery pack is off and you first plug in the USB-C cable. This subsides once the battery pack is turned on.
In conclusion, having 2 fast charging solutions in one battery pack is a worthwhile luxury. It’s great to see products like this fill the need. Having full-fledged QC3.0 capabilities in a portable unit makes travel and juicing up quick, easy and convenient.
Pros:
2 different ports to charge either USB-PD or QC3.0 standards! There are few options like this these days.
QC3.0 amperage, voltages, and charging times are similar to AC QC3.0 adapters!
Auto-shutoff is a nice feature to preserve battery life.
Includes a USB-C compliant USB-A to USB-C cable, a necessary touch to charge the battery if you don't already have one
If you have a capable QC3.0 charger, the battery will charge at ~15W
Cons:
The G5 does not charge at 3A/5V with the USB-C port. My estimates suggest it is more like 5V @ 2A. This may not be any fault of the charger but rather the programming controlling the charging from the phone.
Other:
The USB-C port interface with the G5 results in repeated connects/disconnects if the battery is not off. This is more likely an issue with the phone than the Presto.
2 different ports means 2 different cables to carry!
The outrage on retailers such as Amazon is driven by the USB-PD side, neglecting entirely Qualcomm’s tested standard. Manufacturers in turn are removing their QC implementation from the USB-C ports and leaving them USB-PD only.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not a good power bank to have if one does not already own a device that accepts USB-PD. Reason is this powerbank will only accept 5V3A input to charge itself. The A port cannot be used to charge it. So you cannot QC this powerbank.
So unless you have a charger with a c port that you can connect with a c to c cable, you will only be able to input 7-8W to charge this bank up instead of twice as much. The bank will take twice as long to charge.
That is not true. It *can* take either USB-PD C input or QC input to charge, and it is not only 7-8W, but rather 15W with the QC3 charger. I was afraid of that also, as USB-PD accessories are not so common yet, but my testing (and also from that other review) indicate otherwise.
I had an earlier version of this review using a different brand QC charger, and what you said was the case. Quite slow, 10W charging only (5v @ 2A). But with the Tronsmart QC3 charger, this is not the case.
I was a Note 7 refugee so I have the stock Samsung fast AC charger here. Model EP-TA20JWE rated at 9v @ 1.67A and 5v @ 2A. It's in my kitchen.
I have the original AC charger that came with the Pixel XL. Model TC G1000-US rated at 9v @ 2.0A and 5v @ 0.5A I have only used once to get this information.
I also have a mobile charger in my car. It is labeled as Qualcomm QC 3.0 certified which is why I bought it as the Note 7 was a QC 3.0 device. It is a Choetech Model C0051 rated at 9.1v~12v @ 1.5A Max, 5.6v~9v @ 2A Max, and 3.6v~5.5v @ 2.4A Max (the iFixit teardown has revealed a Qualcomm QC 3.0 IC in the Pixel)
Additionally I have a charger by the bed which is from my Nexus 6, Motorola "Turbo Charger" Model SSW-2680US rated at 5v @ 1.6A, 9v @ 1.6A, and 12v @ 1.2A.
All of the chargers are using their original CABLE (USBA to USBC except in the case of the Pixel which is USBC to USBC) included EXCEPT the Motorola Turbo Charger, which is using a 6 foot long braided USBA to Micro USB cable with the Micro USB to USBC adapter that came with the Note 7.
What I found so far was all three work well and all three are recognized by the phone as a rapid charger.
I also found that at 60% charge and plugging in each one long enough for the lock screen to give me the "rapid charging XX minutes until full" message, the Samsung EP-TA20JWE fast charger charges it faster than the Google TC G1000US or the Choetech C0051. The Google and Choetech appear to charge at the same rate based on time until full. The Motorola Turbo Charger charges at an extremely fast rate, like it took it from 58% to 77% in maybe 5-10 minutes and was saying 15 minutes to full at 77%.
My battery life is phenomenal for me at 5-6 hours SOT, I have no issues with any of these chargers, they all see charging time every day. Turbo charger overnight, Samsung Note 7 charger when in the kitchen where I am a lot, mobile charger when driving to work or classes... (except the actual Pixel charger which I haven't found a use for yet but will probably go to work with me.
*Based on my findings I am going to put the Samsung Note 7 charger in the kitchen and the slowest Pixel charger in the bedroom and take the fastest Turbo charger to work.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I know my test method isn't to some people's satisfaction but the time to full calculation is based on how much the phone is charged now (which I kept within +/- 2% for each check) and how much current the device wants to draw from what's available. What's interesting is the device draws power much quicker than the Pixel charger supplies it when it is plugged into more capable chargers.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Good information. It's nice to knows that all the accessories I got for my note won't go to waste lol.
Thank you.
Sent from my SM-G935V using XDA-Developers mobile app
I have been having varying experiences.
My Anker QC 3.0 type C wall charger seems to charge rapidly, although at the 5V/3A only, with a 6.6ft USB 2.0 i-orange cable. Using a 3.3ft USB 3.0 cable, it shows charging rapidly when I first plug it in, but a few minutes later only shows charging.. but seems to be charging rapidly? My Tronsmart type C w/ QC 3.0 car charger, using an Anker Powerline+ type C cable, shows charging rapidly, but said it had 1+ hour until full when at 70%... Ampere only showed 1.6A being sent to the phone too. I tried an iVoler charger with type C and QC 3.0 and got up to 2050mAh, but it was likely only 5V (which I would expect) but still didn't seem to be charging all that fast.
I think this whole USB-PD thing is going to really be dependent on proper chargers and cables. All of these chargers/cables worked perfect on my Nexus 6P - doesn't seem to be the case on the Pixel.
Thanks for the experience folks. I had purchased a qc 3.0 tronsmart on sale at amazon which I was going to return. I got usb c cables with pd from monoprice. I suppose even if it doesn't fast charge at 18w (9v X 2a), I'd be ok with 15 w charging if I don't have to go out and buy a new car charger.
I mean faster is nice but if it still charges at a good rate, the lower current might help the battery last longer too right?
testinguser said:
Thanks for the experience folks. I had purchased a qc 3.0 tronsmart on sale at amazon which I was going to return. I got usb c cables with pd from monoprice. I suppose even if it doesn't fast charge at 18w (9v X 2a), I'd be ok with 15 w charging if I don't have to go out and buy a new car charger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have bad news for you. I have a Tronsmart QC 3.0 type C charger too - one from a year ago though, don't know if the design has changed - and it is NOT rapid charging my device. It worked perfect on my Nexus 6P. It will start out by saying "charging rapidly" on the Pixel XL, but after several minutes, goes down to "charging" and the charge time is 2+ hours, Ampere shows really low current, etc. It COULD be the Anker Powerline+ type C cable I am using... but I highly doubt it. I think the fact that the type C port has QC 3.0 is not playing nice with the USB-PD chip, and causing it to drop support for 5V/3A all together. I will test this more tonight with the stock cable and see if it works any better.
Did some testing: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=69309771&postcount=30
Man I totally forgot about my Motorola Turbo chargers I got from Groupon. I wish I could find my @zerolemon charger too.. Ill test them with my USB USB Doctor dongles.. When I find them... lol
psa; cables make a huge difference in my experience.
I also have a tronsmart qc2 1 + 3 fast port car charger Ill test and post results.
Perhaps not the right thread but I have just been sent these USB-C cables to review for free.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01EEACOVO/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Amazon says they are rated to 2.4A but will they damage by Pixel XL? I'm not expecting them to charge 'rapidly' but would be handy to be able to use them with an older 2A charger.
Do you think they are safe?
--
Why do so many people try to get a charger with as high a wattage rating as possible but ignore the fact that USB-C is limited to 3A and all you need to do is find a charger capable of delivering 3A.
What does wattage have to do with things?
Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just assuming I must be missing something here.
CZ Eddie said:
Why do so many people try to get a charger with as high a wattage rating as possible but ignore the fact that USB-C is limited to 3A and all you need to do is find a charger capable of delivering 3A.
What does wattage have to do with things?
Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just assuming I must be missing something here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because more watts = more power. USB-C may be limited to 3A, but it is not limited to 5V. Higher volts at the same amperage = more wattage = more power. If you want the fastest charging possible, you need a 9V/2A+ USB-PD charger.
Nitemare3219 said:
it is not limited to 5V.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't realize it was OK to go with higher than 5v now.
Do you know if it's okay to hard wire directly into a 12V system for charging? Like in the car? I'm guessing "no it's not okay" but I'm still learning about USB-C.
---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
tap = hard wire/splice into. As in, no adapter. Just a USB-C at one end and then snip the connector off the other end and use the two power wires and two ground wires to splice directly into say, the back of a cigarette charger's 12V wiring.
CZ Eddie said:
I didn't realize it was OK to go with higher than 5v now.
Do you know if it's okay to hard wire directly into a 12V system for charging? Like in the car? I'm guessing "no it's not okay" but I'm still learning about USB-C.
---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
tap = hard wire/splice into. As in, no adapter. Just a USB-C at one end and then snip the connector off the other end and use the two power wires and two ground wires to splice directly into say, the back of a cigarette charger's 12V wiring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no way that would work, nor would it be safe. There HAS to be an adapter to safely charge the phone by regulating voltage and current, as well as shutting off the charge once it hits 100%.
Nitemare3219 said:
There is no way that would work, nor would it be safe. There HAS to be an adapter to safely charge the phone by regulating voltage and current, as well as shutting off the charge once it hits 100%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's my understanding that some/all of the regulating is done on-board some phones.
I know I never had any issues with my 3A 12v to 5v converter hard wired to S4 and Note 3 phones for charging in either my car or Motorcycle.
At least, I didn't notice any issues.
CZ Eddie said:
It's my understanding that some/all of the regulating is done on-board some phones.
I know I never had any issues with my 3A 12v to 5v converter hard wired to S4 and Note 3 phones for charging in either my car or Motorcycle.
At least, I didn't notice any issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you're a brave soul. I wouldn't ever think to try something like that. Especially not with USB-C & Power Delivery now. The phone is responsible for some of the charging regulation, but the charger itself is just as important.
CZ Eddie said:
Why do so many people try to get a charger with as high a wattage rating as possible but ignore the fact that USB-C is limited to 3A and all you need to do is find a charger capable of delivering 3A.
What does wattage have to do with things?
Not trying to be a jerk, I'm just assuming I must be missing something here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because with USB PD the Pixel can charge at 18W by using 2A by 9V. So just looking for a 3A charger doesn't give you the fastest possible charging for the Pixel. Using a standard 3A charger will charge it at 3A by 5V for 15W. You multiply the voltage and amperage to determine wattage.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I have an aukey car charger and my pixel phone rapid charges when I use the QC 3.0 port, but not the USB c port.
Anyone try the other Motorola turbo chargers 15, 25, 30? Id be curious to know if they work any better. They say the phone must support "turbo"..
---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------
CZ Eddie said:
I didn't realize it was OK to go with higher than 5v now.
Do you know if it's okay to hard wire directly into a 12V system for charging? Like in the car? I'm guessing "no it's not okay" but I'm still learning about USB-C.
---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
tap = hard wire/splice into. As in, no adapter. Just a USB-C at one end and then snip the connector off the other end and use the two power wires and two ground wires to splice directly into say, the back of a cigarette charger's 12V wiring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No definitely not. Car Battery supplies too much wattage/amerpage and its missing the PD ic and other protections in most good charger (over volt, under volt, circuit protection, trickle, power cut off, ect). Thats why all this talk about chargers and cables that do not meet requirements burning equipment/phones up.
It will never know when to stop charging or if over charging and catch fire...
Thats why its not advisable to buy cheap no name unbranded batteries, cables and chargers.
Usb c isnt just a connector/ plug theres an ic (computer chip) in control as well on both sides.
The chip in your battery talks w the one in the phone that talks w the one in the charger..
Does anybody know of a car charger that does turbo charge the Moto Z? Apparently Motorola/Lenovo doesn't offer one and a third party QuickCharge 3.0 I tried failed...
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I got this one :Nekteck 5.4A USB-C Car Charger from Amazon for 15$ and it does turbo charge my phone .
I don't believe that the Z Force is set up for Qualcomm Quick Charge. And while it doesn't Turbo charge, I use the Verizon brand rapid USB-C car charger. I've also read that we have to be careful with what charging cables we use with our Z Force phones.
Sent from my Moto Z Force Droid using Tapatalk.
zaki67 said:
I got this one :Nekteck 5.4A USB-C Car Charger from Amazon for 15$ and it does turbo charge my phone .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, I will try that one then ?.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
karlmf said:
I don't believe that the Z Force is set up for Qualcomm Quick Charge. And while it doesn't Turbo charge, I use the Verizon brand rapid USB-C car charger. I've also read that we have to be careful with what charging cables we use with our Z Force phones.
Sent from my Moto Z Force Droid using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At least Motorola claims it supports QuickCharge if I'm not mistaken. Apparently, though, it also has additional requirements for turbo charging to kick in... I looked at the Verizon charger, too, but a) there's not much info on its website, b) calling Verizon didn't help - they don't have a clue, and c) there is some comment / review saying that it "burned out" some user's battery (which is of course unconfirmed to be related to this charger, may have been something else).
Anyways, given the utter lack of info and the suspicion of harming the battery, I stayed away from it... not to mention the ridiculous $40 price tag.
On an other note, though, Verizon has the original Motorola TurboCharger (wall charger) at a 50% discount.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
pb1379 said:
At least Motorola claims it supports QuickCharge if I'm not mistaken. Apparently, though, it also has additional requirements for turbo charging to kick in... I looked at the Verizon charger, too, but a) there's not much info on its website, b) calling Verizon didn't help - they don't have a clue, and c) there is some comment / review saying that it "burned out" some user's battery (which is of course unconfirmed to be related to this charger, may have been something else).
Anyways, given the utter lack of info and the suspicion of harming the battery, I stayed away from it... not to mention the ridiculous $40 price tag.
On an other note, though, Verizon has the original Motorola TurboCharger (wall charger) at a 50% discount.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No USB-C device can support Quick Charge - it violates the USB-C spec. Any quality USB-C charger that is higher amp will TurboCharge a phone. Moto screwed up by using TurboCharging name with both QuickCharge and USB-C - they are different.
The Moto Z is absurdly picky when it comes to quick charge specs.
I have a Blitzwolf QC2.0 with a type C and a Type A connector in my wifes car, and it will ONLY enter quick charge if I use the Type C to Type C cable I bought from Blitzwolf.
It will not turbo charge if I use a high end Type A to Type C cable, but my wifes LG G5 will do so happily.
I also bought a QC3 compatible charger, with the cable integrated like the original charger, and this works too, and is faster than the QC2 charger.
Both are definitely charging at more than 10 watts, the maximum for 5V 2A mode chargers.
And in fact, using a Non-QC 5V 3A charger, caused my cable to melt, and start to glow.
Incredibly my phone charging port survived.
Blitzwolf may very well be the only brand that works fully, as I just bought a Chuwi QC3 power bank, and it will refuse to quick charge my phone.
But works on some others.
And on another note, I used the Type C to Type C in a modern laptop a while back, and when I plugged it in, my phone displayed the message about receiving quick charge.
If I'm not mistaken, the Type C spec allows quick charging, but only if you use C to C, with the extra pins it's able to keep better track of the charging process I guess.
Shadowdancer123 said:
The Moto Z is absurdly picky when it comes to quick charge specs.
...
And on another note, I used the Type C to Type C in a modern laptop a while back, and when I plugged it in, my phone displayed the message about receiving quick charge.
If I'm not mistaken, the Type C spec allows quick charging, but only if you use C to C, with the extra pins it's able to keep better track of the charging process I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it seems all matter of cables...!
I have a Blitzwolf QC3.0 too BUT I'm able to obtain "Turbocharge" indication only using a *single* micro USB to type C adaptor. This with every cable and every charger. Even when connected to a USB port!
If I use every other cable or similar adaptors (I've tested many...), the "Turbocharge" never shows (except original charger obviously...).
With Blitzwolf QC3 and this cable/adaptor I got a full charge from less than 5% in about 70-75 min... during the charge cable was OK, while the adaptor (with metallic/aluminium exterior) was quite warm but never really hot in dangerous way...
Here's more information than any of you probably care about, but I'm tired of seeing the same misinformation and confusion being thrown around (not just in the Moto Z forum, but in a bunch of others, too).
chromedome00 said:
No USB-C device can support Quick Charge - it violates the USB-C spec.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not true. Case in point: my ZTE Axon 7 and LeEco S3 both use QC 3.0 and both are USB-C. The common confusion comes from using "USB-C" (a connector) and "Type-C" (interchangeably used to refer to the connector and the power specification) incorrectly. Clarification below.
chromedome00 said:
Any quality USB-C charger that is higher amp will TurboCharge a phone. Moto screwed up by using TurboCharging name with both QuickCharge and USB-C - they are different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is mostly true. "TurboPower" is the stupid name Moto uses to refer to the Type-C power specification. Actually, I'm being unfair: it's confusing that they called it "Type-C" in the first place and Moto took the opportunity to market the spec as their own thing.
Before going any further, let's use a common analogy to make the relationship between, wattage, voltage, and amperage easier to understand in broad terms. Wattage is the amount of water going through a pipe. Voltage is how fast that water is moving and amperage is the size of the pipe. 15W is 15W, but you can get there by having a tiny pipe (1A) with water moving really fast through it (15V) or a really big pipe (3A) with water going more slowly through it (5V). They both move the same amount of power, but in different ways. Got it? Good.
Anyway, Type-C has a fixed voltage and maxes out at 15W ([email protected]). Quick Charge 1.0 does only 10W ([email protected]), 2.0 does 18W (5/9/12V @ 3.6/2/1.5A respectively), and 3.0 does 18W with varying voltage (3.6-20V) and amperage (5-0.9A) to match. That is the advantage of QC over Type-C: a higher voltage can (usually) be run through those old and cheap USB cables without issue since voltage tolerance is determined largely by the phone and the charger. As long as the amperage doesn't exceed the capacity (gauge) of the wire, higher voltage is fine.
Amperage, though, that's what causes non-compliant or crappy cables to burn up. Really old or especially cheap cables can handle 1A max (heck, if they were built to spec, only 500mA for USB 2.0), but most cables of reasonable quality can handle 2A without much issue. They tend to use lower gauge (thicker) wires and should *not* feel warm at all when using it to charge. Some manufacturers (Samsung, for example) used to disable data on their USB cables and use it for additional amperage capacity, which is why you would occasionally buy a phone with a cable that wouldn't work for data transfer in the computer but would charge your phone just fine.
Moving on. Technically, QC 1.0 and QC 3.0 do not violate the Type-C power spec. QC 1.0 because it can't exceed it and QC 3.0 because it's variable. That said, QC 3.0 (and possibly QC 1.0, I don't know) require protocol negotiation; if that negotiation is lacking (in the case of the Moto Z), it's going to default to a "safe" charging rate (around 5W, plus or minus some). Your QC 2.0 does technically violate the Type-C spec because its voltage and amperage rates are fixed: you can get 5V at up to 3.6A. The "up to" bit is the important part. I have seen in various threads folks claiming their non-QC 3.0 phones will work with QC 2.0 chargers just fine and it's probably because the amperage tolerance is there (ie. it will actually allow 3.6A, violating spec) or it gets throttled (ie. sticks to 3A, keeping to spec).
Shadowdancer123 said:
The Moto Z is absurdly picky when it comes to quick charge specs.
...
And in fact, using a Non-QC 5V 3A charger, caused my cable to melt, and start to glow.
Incredibly my phone charging port survived.
...
If I'm not mistaken, the Type C spec allows quick charging, but only if you use C to C, with the extra pins it's able to keep better track of the charging process I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All Type-C and USB-PD compliant devices are picky about the charge specs, not just the Moto Z. Or, at least, they're supposed to be for the reasons outlined above (namely the amperage). QC devices are less picky because it frequently uses higher voltage, which we established above as being much more tolerable for cables of varying quality.
Your cable melting and glowing is to be expected when you push 3A through a cable that likely can't handle more than 2A or so. Your phone charging port survived because it's designed to handle 3A.
I'm not entirely sure about which pins do what on a USB-C connector, but you're right in the C-to-C is the only connection that (should, according to spec) support Type-C and USB-PD (Power Delivery). The rate is negotiated via the USB Power Delivery 2.0 "power rules", which define four acceptable voltages (5/9/15/20) and variable amperage (0.1-5) to obtain charge rates as low as 0.5W and as high as 100W. "Type-C" is part of the Power Delivery spec, but is usually limited to only the 5V rule. I'm fairly certain the Moto Z does not support anything past the first level power rule, which is why you likely won't find the Moto Z to charge significantly faster with the TurboPower 30 included with the Moto Z Force than it does with its original TurboPower 15 charger. No clue as to whether that's a hardware or software limitation.
Also, to answer the OP's original question: any reputable (Anker, Aukey, Choetech, Belkin, etc) that uses an actual USB-C port will work. Most (if not all) dual port units will have a USB-C port that will work with the Moto Z (or any other Type-C/USB-PD device) and a QC 3.0 compatible "traditional" USB-A port. I have yet to find one that includes two USB-C ports and I really hate the ones with integrated cables.
My personal favorite is the Choetech for $16 since its QC 3.0 USB-A port is reversible: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AAGH8OY/
This Aukey is cheaper ($15) and would be fine: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01E764DXM/
Here's a Tronsmart for $16, as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B018K7LHBU/
Even this $10 Vinsic should be okay: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B014F2NQ36/
Just for funsies, here's a spreadsheet of the Benson Leung cable and charger tests: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJwqv3rTNmORXz-XJsQaXK1dl8I91V4-eP_sfNVNzbA/edit#gid=0
Interestingly, the $10 Vinsic is on his list of approved. So there. Go buy a $10 car charger and be happy.
I have the aukey 6 port usb charging station with two QC 3.0 ports, I am using high quality braided usb 3.0 to type c cables - I have tested both QC 3.0 ports and the other ports (using ampere) - Every port lists charging as "normal" - QC port 1 shows a min of 640mA and a max of 1040mA. QC Port 2 shows - min of 530 mA and a max of 980 mA. Regular ports 3-6 all show a min of 270mA and max of 870 mA. Not one port indicated it was ever turbo or fast charging. This same charger does fast charge my lg G5 and Samsung S7 Edge.
this one is verified to give the "TurboPower connected" message when plugged in.
From what I have read, both QC 2.0 and 3.0 doesn't turbo charge moto phones. Qualcomms QC charging works by increasing the voltage and decreasing the amps. So you can have 12v and 2amp for a total of 24 watts, but that won't turbo charge the moto z. Moto works on 5 volts but needs at least 3 amps. It is the amps that seem to engage the Motos into turbo charge mode, and they have to be at least 3 amps.
This Belkin model, for example, is what Benson Leung uses for his pixel xl. Its one of the few on Amazon that is USB-IF certified for 5v 3amp.
rczrider said:
Here's more information than any of you probably care about, but I'm tired of seeing the same misinformation and confusion being thrown around (not just in the Moto Z forum, but in a bunch of others, too).
That's not true. Case in point: my ZTE Axon 7 and LeEco S3 both use QC 3.0 and both are USB-C. The common confusion comes from using "USB-C" (a connector) and "Type-C" (interchangeably used to refer to the connector and the power specification) incorrectly. Clarification below.
Moving on. Technically, QC 1.0 and QC 3.0 do not violate the Type-C power spec. QC 1.0 because it can't exceed it and QC 3.0 because it's variable. That said, QC 3.0 (and possibly QC 1.0, I don't know) require protocol negotiation; if that negotiation is lacking (in the case of the Moto Z), it's going to default to a "safe" charging rate (around 5W, plus or minus some). Your QC 2.0 does technically violate the Type-C spec because its voltage and amperage rates are fixed: you can get 5V at up to 3.6A. The "up to" bit is the important part. I have seen in various threads folks claiming their non-QC 3.0 phones will work with QC 2.0 chargers just fine and it's probably because the amperage tolerance is there (ie. it will actually allow 3.6A, violating spec) or it gets throttled (ie. sticks to 3A, keeping to spec).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are propagating mis-information. If you want to catch up on why QC 2.0/3.0 violate the USB-C spec, here it is from the horses mouth:
https://plus.google.com/+BensonLeung/posts/cEvVQLXhyRX
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...omm-quick-charge-with-android-incompatibility
Interestingly Qualcomm has QC 4.0 now and they call out integration with USB-C and USB-PD https://www.qualcomm.com/news/relea...livers-20-faster-charging-improved-efficiency
"Quick Charge 4 also integrates USB Type-C and USB-PD support, making the industry’s most popular battery charging solution available on the widest variety of cables and adapters."
USB-C has 24 pins while standard USB-A has 4. Quick Charge chargers (2.0/3.0) only have the 4 pins of USB-A - so if it can't use the data lines, then it can't quick charge via USB-C. Since there are only 4 outputs, plugging a USB-C cable into a QC 2.0/3.0 charger will not change anything. Still only 4 wires originating from the charger. The data lines are not allowed to be used for voltage, so your QC charger will only supply a fixed 5V to the phone. So no Quick Charge.
If QC3 supports [email protected] couldn't it supply power at [email protected] to turbocharge?
Looking for a solution to turbocharge my Moto Z and support QC3 for LG G5/Samsung S7.
The TurboPower 15 wall charger delivers hours of power in just minutes of charging. It includes micro USB and single USB charging cables so you can use it on compatible smartphones, tablets, digital cameras and more.
Have a Moto Z or another USB-C enabled device? The TurboPower 30 wall charger is USB-C compatible.
Looking for a car charger? Shop at Motorola Home.
zaki67 said:
I got this one :Nekteck 5.4A USB-C Car Charger from Amazon for 15$ and it does turbo charge my phone .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just ordered one of these. This one specifically
Hopefully it'll work out well
This one works fine.
https://store.google.com/product/belkin_15w_usb_c_car_charger
Sent from my XT1650-03 using Tapatalk
swejuggalo said:
This one works fine.
https://store.google.com/product/belkin_15w_usb_c_car_charger
Sent from my XT1650-03 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YES! I can confirm it!